Pages

Friday, 30 December 2016

I’ll
try to keep this short. Titanfall 2 is really f**king good, but it’s
far from perfect. I’ve already written a lot about what I consider
to be the weakest aspect of the title – map design – but there’s
many other issues I feel need to be addressed.

If
you’ve read my post regarding the Angel City update, you’ll know
my thoughts on the Amped Hardpoint mode and how I consider it to be
flawed not only in terms of the amp mechanic, but also in objective
placement. Many of the hardpoints need to be relocated so they are
inaccessible to titans, and the amp system should be significantly
reduced in terms of bonus.

In
my review I highlighted potential balance issues with SMG weapons.
Their effective range and damage at range needs to be seriously
reduced, whilst their bullet spread at range should be significantly
increased. Their hip fire accuracy is fine, but only if they’re
appropriately balanced as short to mid-range weapons.

There
are still issues with calling down your titan on particular maps,
resulting in it landing on the opposite side. Too many maps also have
clutter on the ground or walls that disrupt or abruptly halt your
flow of movement. The spawn system is also still a complete mess on
many maps, and the matchmaking system frequently drops you into
activate games, usually on the side that’s about to lose.

The
‘Amped Weapons’ boost is another issue and one I feel requires a
significant alteration, even though I frequently use the boost myself.
Why wouldn’t I? It transforms many of the weapons into one shot –
one kill, and also stacks over time, meaning you can play entire
matches whilst amped. An ‘amped ammo’ boost for your active
weapon would be far more balanced and would only last until the
weapon was reloaded.

Amped
Wall is another boost that’s too damn good. It not only increases
outgoing damage, but acts as an exceptional shield – an even better
shield than an actual shield boost which nobody uses as a result. An
easy fix? Let it amp shots, but remove the shield function entirely.

Reapers
and stalkers in Attrition are an irritating addition, not only as
titans often get ‘stuck’ on them, but because they reduce the
final stages of an attrition match into a reaper ‘farm’ for
maximum points. They need to be removed or massively reduced in terms
of numbers.

Melee
attacks are still hit and miss, and when you get killed by the person
you were attempting to melee it’s incredibly frustrating. On a
technical level, the servers
don’t always feel fast enough to keep up with the action. I like
the phase shift ability, but frequently get killed after entering
a shift, making the ability dangerously inconsistent.

And
inconsistency in an online
shooter is a major problem. If things don’t work the way
they should when they should, it results in a game that frequently
feels unfair. That’s a
serious issue. Because if the game doesn’t feel fair, if deaths
feel cheap and unavoidable people will simply stop playing.

Although
the developers have promised that all future maps and modes will be
free, that promise is only worth something if they actually release
something good. Or at all. I want to see more original maps, but only
if they’re unaltered, unlike Angel City. And we need new
maps that adhere to the original game’s design philosophy.

I
want to keep this short, so let’s wrap this up. Titanfall 2 is
great, but it has many issues relating to map design and balance that
must be addressed if it’s going to thrive. Many of these issues can
be fixed or improved, but only if we’re willing to call them out
and not accept the game as ‘perfect’. Because it’s not. And
I’ve seen too much nonsense online about how the game ‘deserves’
to succeed.

Bullshit.
It’s doesn’t ‘deserve’ anything. It has to earn it. There are
too many people dick riding Titanfall 2 right now and that’s not
healthy for the long term development of the title. So I can’t join
in, even though I’m a fan of the game. I want it to succeed, but
I’m not going to pretend these problems don’t exist.

I
want to be playing Titanfall 2 at this time next year, but unless the
game undergoes significant balance improvements and releases new maps
that are more appropriately designed to the strengths of Titanfall
gameplay, it’s hard to see it lasting more than another six months.
If the already dwindling player base is any indication, it probably
won’t. I hope I’m wrong.

Tuesday, 27 December 2016

In
my review, I wrote that ‘in
many ways, this is Warhammer: Total War, as opposed to Total War:
Warhammer. It embraces the licence and builds the game around it,
rather than attempting to crowbar the licence into the existing
formula. And I think it’s a better game for doing so.’

I
don’t think Total War: Warhammer is the best Total
War
game. In terms of its campaign, it’s far more streamlined and
simplistic than Attila – which I’d rate has having one of, if not
the,
most complex campaigns of the entire series. Which is why I hope
that, despite the success of Warhammer, the developers look to Attila
as the base upon which to build future historical campaigns.

That
said, the campaign of Warhammer feels fitting for
its setting,
and is no less engaging. I also wrote in the review that the initial
‘release is something of a ‘foundation’ upon which the
developers can now build.’ And I’m pleased to say that’s
exactly what’s happened. With regular updates and new content,
Total War: Warhammer has evolved considerably since release and will
continue to do so into the new year.

Total
War: Warhammer is the fantasy Total War I always wanted and it claims
my Game of the Year. (Full Review)

Most Disappointing Game of
2016 – Titanfall 2 (Multiplayer)

How
can Titanfall 2, one of my most highly rated games of the year, also
be my most disappointing? This wasn’t an easy choice, but I feel it
was a necessary one. Because I am disappointed by Titanfall 2. I’m
disappointed by its new approach to map design. I’m disappointed by
its lack of balance. And I’m disappointed by the media and fan
reaction to the game that seems more intent on sucking its dick than
addressing its many flaws.

I’ll
have a more in depth ‘Final Thoughts’ post up soon. Sorry,
Titanfall 2. But you’ve got to do better. (Full Review)

Thursday, 22 December 2016

Command
& Conquer is one of the first RTS games I played and as such, I
have fond memories of its campaign. But returning to the original C&C
today wasn’t quite the happy nostalgia rush I was hoping for.

The
game has two campaigns, one for each of the two opposing factions –
The Global Defence Initiate (GDI) and The Brotherhood of Nod. This is
the game that set the stage for the GDI/NOD conflict in terms of
story, but also established the basic style of play of each faction.

A
GDI army will typically field less (more expensive) units, but also
stronger units. Whereas NOD will field more (cheaper) units, but less
powerful units. The GDI campaign takes place across Europe, whilst
the NOD campaign is set in Africa. But what this really means in
terms of missions is that the GDI campaign features ‘grass’ maps
and the NOD campaign ‘sand’ maps.

The
unit/building variety and design across the two factions is great and
many of the units and buildings established here will continue to
feature in later titles. Unfortunately, due to the way missions are
designed, you’ll rarely use the full arsenal at your disposal
regardless of faction.

Because
it’s the missions of C&C that are its greatest weakness. I
still adore everything else about the game – the setting, the
story, the units, the sound and particularly the music, which is
irritatingly catchy – I AM A MECHANICAL I AM A MECHANICAL I AM A
MECHANICAL MAN.

The
basic gameplay remains fun and addictive, but the mission design is
poor. There are many missions across both campaigns that I’d call
‘bullshit’ missions. These are missions that feel more cheap than
challenging in terms of difficulty and practically require
‘cheese’ tactics on the part of the player in order to progress.

A
great example is a late NOD mission that grants you a handful of
basic units and a construction vehicle, then immediately blocks your
only path with two GDI mammoth tanks – their most powerful land
unit. The only way to progress is to cheese your way past them, using
your construction vehicle as bait (as the AI will automatically
target it as the most ‘valuable’ unit). And there are countless
missions like this, where you’ll be forced into taking advantage of
the predictable AI in order to progress.

Another
great example is how you can use a single unit to attack an AI
harvester, and the AI will (always) send every unit it has to defend
it – thereby leaving its main base extremely vulnerable. You don’t
feel good exploiting the AI like this, but on many missions it’s
the only real way to progress at a steady rate. If you try to play
the game in a more ‘conventional’ way, you’re in for a tedious
f**king slog as you slowly whittle down your opponent.

Sure,
you can sit back, take your time and build up a varied and strong
attack force, but doing so won’t be any more effective (and is
actually far less effective) than massing a couple of basic
unit types and swarming the enemy. I’m sure you could argue that’s
how many RTS games are played, but in the original C&C, it feels
like the only way to play.

Some
other issues include not being able to queue build orders, the fact
that many missions only complete when all enemy units and structures
are destroyed – including that single f**king infantryman hiding
behind a tree in a far corner of the bloody map. The game speed
always feels either too fast or too slow, which means you’ll
frequently be switching between modes. And the path finding in the
game is pretty terrible, forcing you to continually babysit your
units.

I
feel like I’m taking a real dump on C&C which I don’t really
like because it’s a game I have fond memories of. And I do still
like the game. I like everything about it … aside from the bloody
missions, which I can’t deny I didn’t really enjoy at all.

Red
Alert, on the other hand, I had an absolute blast with. I must
admit, the new units and buildings aren’t as cool in terms of
design (and Red Alert reuses several unit and UI assets from C&C).
The music isn’t as catchy either. Despite that, Red Alert remains a
fantastic RTS.

Like
C&C it features two campaigns – Allies and Soviets – but
there is more environmental variety in terms of maps across both
campaigns. And it does have some unique and fun units, like Tanya and
the Spy. It also introduced naval units to the series (C&C had
automated naval gunboats that you couldn’t build or control).

But
honestly, Red Alert does feel a little like a copy and paste job
compared to C&C, and that’s evident in how many assets are
reused. That said, I had way more fun with Red Alert than C&C
as the missions are by far more enjoyable. They’re more varied in
terms of maps, terrain, objectives, units and strategy.

I
never came across a single mission in either campaign that felt like
a ‘bullshit’ mission. Unlike C&C, the campaigns of Red Alert
are well paced, varied and interesting to replay, offering multiple
ways to progress. It is, purely in terms of mission design, the
superior title.

It’s
never tedious. It’s faster paced in terms of engagement and
production and it lets you utilise the full arsenal at your disposal.
The game speed feels comfortable, so I wasn’t continually changing
settings. The AI is slightly better, at least in the sense
that it’s less easy to bait.

Unit
path finding also seems better, but I think this is mostly thanks to
how the maps are designed. If I had to rate the individual campaigns
in order, I’d say the Soviet campaign was by far my favourite,
followed by the Allied Campaign, the NOD campaign and finally GDI.

I
suppose it’s time to wrap this up and pick a winner, but I think at
this point it’s fairly obvious which game has emerged the victor.
Red Alert takes an early lead. Whilst it may lack in many areas
compared to C&C it absolutely excels where it really matters –
the missions.

Roll
on Round 2, when Red Alert 2 goes head to head against Tiberian Sun.

Friday, 16 December 2016

Realm
of the Wood Elves is the latest DLC release for Total War: Warhammer.
It integrates the Wood Elves race into the game as a new playable or
AI controlled faction within the grand campaign, but also within
‘Season of Revelation’ – a new mini-campaign. Like the other
playable races, the Wood Elves have their own unique Lords, unit
roster and campaign style.

The
unique campaign mechanics of each race is one of the things I like
most about Total War: Warhammer, even if I don’t necessarily enjoy
every play style on offer. And I don’t think everyone will enjoy
the new campaign mechanics of the Wood Elves. They represent the most
significant departure yet from the traditional Total War campaign
‘formula’ and I predict will likely prove the most divisive among
the player base.

Unlike
other races, the Wood Elves aren’t concerned with expanding
territory or wiping out particular factions. Their entire campaign
and their victory conditions revolve around a single objective –
The Oak of Ages. It’s a unique structure on the map that can be
upgraded, each new level introducing new faction wide benefits. The
primary goal of the Wood Elves campaign is to upgrade the Oak to its
maximum level.

Upgrading
the Oak doesn’t simply require gold, but amber – a new
resource that can only be obtained and ‘spent’ by the Wood Elves.
Each new level of the Oak has a higher requirement of amber, so
obtaining amber is a key part of the campaign. And
this is where things get interesting, because amber isn’t simply
used for upgrading the Oak, but also for main settlement structures,
certain technologies and most importantly of all – particular units
depending on which of the two Legendary Lords you choose.

Amber
can be obtained in two main ways – by capturing settlements (minor
settlements give 1 amber, whilst major give 2) and forging alliances
(you’ll receive 1 or 2 amber for every minor or major settlement
your ally controls). You can also obtain amber by completing quest
chains, but it’s through conquest and diplomacy that you’ll
receive the bulk of your amber.

But
neither way is entirely ‘safe’ at providing amber. If your ally
loses a region, you also lose the amber that region provided. And if
you lose a region you’ve taken, you also lose that amber. Any amber
you’ve spent on structures, technology or the Oak can’t be
returned, although amber purchased units can be disbanded. This means
that it’s possible to have a negative amber count, and doing so
will introduce negative faction wide effects.

If
allies aren’t entirely reliable, then it may seem like the safest
way to obtain and more importantly retain amber is by taking
settlements, but this isn’t as simple as it seems. Though the Wood
Elves can capture any settlement on the map (unlike all the
other races) they can only build a single, simple ‘outpost’ in
each with a basic (useless) garrison force.

The
only place the Wood Elves can build their ‘main’ structures is
within the four ten slot settlements surrounding the Oak of Ages. At
the start of a campaign you’ll only control one of these and must
either conquer or confederate with the other Wood Elf factions in
order to utilise their building slots. These certainly give you
enough room to build every available structure, but it does mean that
your entire military and economic infrastructure is locked to a
single region.

The
‘outpost’ settlements that you’ll capture serve to support your
faction, and the more you possess, the more you can stack their
various buffs to economy or defence. But each outpost is incredibly
vulnerable and easy to lose.

I
know some people may feel the amber cost associated with units may be
too restrictive, but the amber costs only apply to top tier units and
by the time you’re able to recruit these high end units, you should
have more than enough amber to cover them. And which units cost amber
will vary depending on which of the two available Legendary Lords you
pick to play.

In
terms of units, the roster has a great mix of infantry, cavalry and
monster units, as well as new heroes. As you would expect, their
archer units are their most effective. It may not seem that way, at
least in terms of base stats when compared to archers from other
races, but when you take their multiple arrow types into account and
the rather insane buffs they receive from both Lords and Heroes in
the form of passive and active augments, they can absolutely melt
entire units in seconds.

And
with the ability to fire on the move, they make for fantastic
skirmish troops, not to mention significant buffs for fighting in
forests. On the battlefield, the Wood Elves are far more micro
intensive than any of the other races, but they can be an incredibly
devastating force once you learn to play them effectively.

Overall,
the Wood Elves are a fantastic new addition to Total War: Warhammer,
with engaging new campaign mechanics and a diverse and extensive new
unit roster to play with or fight against. Because like the other
DLCs, even if you don’t think the Wood Elves are for you, they’ll
still be added into and enhance your grand campaign as an AI faction.

So
let’s turn our attention to the mini-campaign also included in this
DLC. It’s essentially a ‘zoomed in’ map of the area surrounding
The Oak of Ages. The objective is the same as in the grand campaign –
to upgrade the Oak. But in the mini-campaign, every upgrade level
spawns a new wave of beastmen stacks.

It’s
not a terribly interesting campaign, and once you realise the
beastmen invasions are only triggered by upgrading the Oak, it’s
incredibly easy to take your time, expand and trigger them only when
you’re ready which rather negates the challenge. It’s a short,
forgettable campaign that you likely won’t play more than once if
at all. This DLC is only worth buying for playing the Wood
Elves in the grand campaign.

And
that’s why it’s hard to recommend this DLC at its current RRP. I
do recommend picking it up and playing as the Wood Elves at some
point, but unless you’re desperate to play as them right now,
I’d say it’s best to wait for a sale. Aside from the pricing and
a few bugs, Realm of the Wood Elves is a good new addition to the
core game and another reason why Total War: Warhammer is a strong
contender for my Game of the Year.

Sunday, 11 December 2016

I
picked up the Command & Conquer: Ultimate Collection in a recent
sale. It includes all of the main C&C games – Command &
Conquer, Red Alert, Tiberian Sun, Red Alert 2, Renegade, Generals,
Tiberium Wars, Red Alert 3 & Tiberian Twilight – as well as all
the various expansions.

Aside
from Renegade and Tiberian Twilight, I’ve actually played all of
these games at some point. Some I’ve owned and sold on – Red
Alert, Tiberian Sun, Generals, Red Alert 3 – whilst others I still
own – C&C, Red Alert 2, Tiberium Wars.

But
having them all digitally with the accompanying expansions is a
pretty good offer for six quid and a chance to play my way through
the entirety of this wonderful series. The original Command &
Conquer is one of the first RTS games I played and a big part of the
reason why I’m so fond of the genre (even if I’m not particularly
great at it, I must admit).

But
I didn’t want to simply play through every game and review each in
turn. Instead, I thought I’d do something a little more fun and put
the core C&C titles head to head against the Red Alert games.

It’s
a quest to determine which C&C series is the best – GDI vs.
NOD? Or Allies vs. Soviets? Which series has the best units? The best
music? The best sound? The best missions? The best story? And, of
course, the most important question of all – which Red Alert game
has the best Tanya?

We’ll
begin with the original Command & Conquer vs. the original Red
Alert. Who shall emerge the victor? Round 1 coming soon.

Tuesday, 6 December 2016

Titanfall
2 may be one of the best games I’ve played this year, but it’s
also a game I find incredibly infuriating at times. If you’ve read
my review and my post about map design, you’ll know I consider the
multiplayer maps of Titanfall 2 to be its weakest component.

Compared
to the original game, the maps do not appropriately balance the
multi-layered gameplay of Titanfall. The perfect balance between
pilot and titan that existed within the original has been shot to
pieces and as a result, matches are now dominated entirely by titans.

And
perhaps that was the intent. But it’s not a design philosophy I
particularly care for and it’s not one I feel plays to the core
strength of the game. I was hopeful, however, that future maps would
see a return to the map design philosophy of the original game, where
verticality is key and where a careful balance between pilot and
titan ‘terrain’ is struck. If not new maps, then at least
‘remastered’ versions of original Titanfall maps.

Which
is why I was so looking forward to the release of the first major
Titanfall 2 update which included the remastered Angel City – one
of the best maps from the original game. But then I played the map
and to my horror, realised they’d only gone and f**ked it up.

I’m
talking specifically about the Amped Hardpoint mode. If you’ve read
my review, you’ll know I’m not really a fan of the ‘amped’
aspect, or the placement of the objective points on the majority of
the maps. Because on the majority of the maps, 2 or even all 3 of the
objective points are fully accessible to titans, or within a clear
line of sight of titan fire.

Amped Hardpoint, just like Attrition and Bounty Hunt, is
now a mode entirely dominated by titans. Whichever team can call down
their titans first will nearly always dominate and win the match, as
they can simply ‘park’ their titans upon 1, 2 or even all 3
objective points.

And
because of the lack of pilot terrain, it’s incredibly easy to kill
pilots attacking these points. As a result, a team without titan
control in Amped Hardpoint will always lose. You may argue this was
true in the original game, but very few maps in the original had more
than a single point accessible to titans or titan line of fire.

In
the original, titans served more of a ‘support’ role within the
mode, whereas in Titanfall 2, it’s just another mode where titans
completely dominate the play. And this is even more pronounced due to
the new ‘amped’ mechanic, as parking a couple of titans on points
early will rapidly gain a team an unassailable lead.

In
the original game, Hardpoint matches would rarely be complete stomps,
but in Titanfall 2, complete stomps one way or the other is a regular
occurrence due to the objective placement and the amped mechanic. It
totally kills what was my favourite mode in the original game, and
what should have been my favourite mode in the sequel.

Which
brings us back to the ‘remastered’ Angel City, one of my
favourite maps in the original, particularly for the Hardpoint mode.
I was quite excited to jump back into this map and mode in Titanfall
2 even though I’m not fond of the ‘amped’ aspect, because at
least (I thought) we’d return to a more appropriate objective
placement. When the match began, I made a fast line for Hardpoint A
only to realise … it was no longer there.

It
seems some chucklef**k decided to relocate the objective point to an
exterior location fully accessible to titans, bringing the map more
in line with this new and terrible design philosophy whereby every
map and mode should be dominated by titan play. I can’t understate
how angry I was when I realised what they’d done. They took a map
that was perfectly f**king balanced and ruined it for no good reason.

And
how did that game play out? Just as I expected it to – the other
team were able to rapidly gain a titan advantage, park their titans
on both A and C (amping both points) and won within a matter of
minutes. Hardpoint matches are no longer about controlling points or
co-ordinating with your team to assault or defend – they’re about
grabbing quick, early kills to earn your titan as rapidly as possible
so your team can dominate the game.

As
fantastic a game as I think Titanfall 2 is, I also think it’s being
held back by a map design philosophy that runs contrary to what makes
the gameplay so unique and appealing – the delicate balance between
pilot and titan. Whenever I play Attrition, Bounty Hunt or Amped
Hardpoint, I just feel like I’m only playing as a pilot to earn my
titan as quickly as I can because if I don’t, defeat is almost
certain.

In
the original game, I could play entire matches without calling
down my titan, because pilot gameplay could be just as effective due
to the way maps were designed. One held no great advantage over the
other if you knew what you were doing. But in Titanfall 2, the
opposite is true.

This
post was intended to be a fairly short rant, but I really couldn’t
help myself. I love Titanfall 2. It’s great. It really is. But it’s
a game I’m coming to hate as much as I love due to this backwards
design philosophy that is actively working against the strengths of
the game.

Monday, 28 November 2016

The Crew is an online, open world racing game that can be played solo or
co-operatively/competitively with other players. Actually, ‘racing’
game isn’t the best way to describe The Crew. It’s more of a
‘driving’ game than a pure racing game. The open world of The
Crew is an impressively large representation of the United States,
allowing you to seamlessly drive from East to West Coast.

There
is a story, of sorts. You play as some guy called Alex(?), who wants
revenge on some other guy who killed his brother or something. But to
do so, he needs to work his way up the ranks of a criminal
organisation. This involves travelling to the major zones of the game
world – The South, The Midwest, The East Coast, The West Coast and
The Mountain States – and completing a series of story based
missions.

These
missions vary between time trial checkpoint challenges, 1 or 3 lap
races, police escapes, item retrieval/destruction and vehicle
takedowns. There’s not a fantastic variety of objectives, but by
continually mixing these mission types from one to the next, and by
introducing new car specs and environments, they never get too
stale or repetitive.

That
said, there’s nothing here that’s particularly great, either. The
police escapes aren’t very exciting, and the item
retrieval/destruction missions are more irritating than fun. The
vehicle takedown jobs are easily the worst as you tediously chase
down another car and ram it until its ‘health bar’ drops to zero.

Thankfully,
the time trials and races are pretty good fun, and that’s where
the game shines. Which is why it’s such a shame they only account
for about 20% of the main mission content. Also, it must be said that
the story of The Crew is forgettable and bland as f**k. It serves to
point you from one game zone to the next, but don’t expect to be
invested in the story or characters. You just won’t care.

Being
a Ubisoft open world title, there’s a lot of side content to
be found outside of the core story based missions. But like many open
world Ubisoft titles, it’s largely meaningless and entirely
skippable filler. I do like the way it’s integrated, however.

There
are hundreds of free roam ‘challenges’ that you’ll find as you
traverse the world. These may involve taking a stunt jump, weaving
between virtual posts or simply driving super fast for as long a
stretch as possible. Like the core missions, completing these
challenges awards experience that levels up your car, as well as a
part to improve its performance. These are graded on a Bronze, Silver
or Gold system depending on how well you perform.

In
addition to these challenges there are also points of interest to
visit and secret car parts to discover, which when combined will
unlock a special vehicle. And, being a Ubisoft open world title,
there are of course radio towers to reveal the location of
local side content. But is any of the side content really worth your
time? No, unfortunately not. It’s fun to do the odd challenge as
you’re driving from one story mission to the next, but that’s
about it.

As
you progress through the game you’ll unlock new car specs –
Street, Dirt, Performance, Raid and Circuit, each with its own
benefits, style of play and cosmetic customisation. Some cars can be
built for multiple specs, but others may be limited to only 1 or 2.
You can switch out specs and cars on the fly in the open world, and
missions will select the appropriate vehicle for the terrain.

In
terms of handling, The Crew leans more towards arcade than simulator,
but even after sinking a lot of hours into the game and completing
the main story missions, I still feel like the car handling isn’t
quite as responsive as it should be. But before I start getting too
negative, I have to say I did have some fun with The Crew. Exploring
the map, completing the missions, attempting the odd side challenge
and customising my cars was all decent enough to hold my attention.

Okay,
now onto my issues with the game. The first is the UI, which is a
convoluted and irritating mess to navigate. You learn to live with
it, but you’ll never enjoy using it. The damage model in the game
is horrible. You get these nasty white ‘scratches’ on your car
regardless of where you take a hit. Cars also ‘self-heal’ over
time anyway so it doesn’t matter how badly you maul them.

The
music selection is awful. Awful. There’s a very limited
number of radio stations with an extremely limited selection of
tracks. I wasn’t expecting GTA style stations with fake adverts or
talk shows, but for a game that’s entirely about driving, I’d
like a far more varied and extensive selection of music to fill the
void.

The
car parts upgrade system is basic as f**k and is simply a case of
parts with ‘+6 to acceleration’ and small stat increases like that. It
doesn’t make tuning your car particularly engaging as you’ll
always simply use parts that increase the overall car ‘level’.

The
car cosmetic customisation fares better, but once again, for a game
which is all about cars and driving, what’s available feels
remarkably limited. The fact is, I had more fun tuning and
customising my cars in GTA V than I did in The Crew. The damage model
was also much better, as was the car physics during crashes.

I
can’t run over pedestrians. I can’t run over pedestrians.

Buying new cars also feels like a grind, and the selection isn’t
even that good, with many vehicles locked behind micro-transactions.
The Crew, which is a game all about cars and driving, does a piss
poor job with the things that really matter – car choice, car
tuning and cosmetics. I could forgive the dismal music selection if
they got the important stuff right. GTA V did this stuff better and
that was just a small part of a much larger game.

Graphically, The Crew is a decent looking title and performance is
solid considering the impressive size of its open world. But the game
does suffer from some unfortunate server lag that can be rather
distracting whilst driving. Also, as impressive as the open world is,
most of it does only exist to serve as a long drive from one mission
to the next, and you’ll always want to fast travel where available.

I
actually got The Crew for free, so I suppose the question is –
would I recommend paying for it? Is it worth it? Maybe on sale, I
suppose, if the notion of a massive open world driving game appeals
to you. And it probably is the best
massive open world driving game out right now. But it’s also a game
that falls far short of its potential and cuts too many corners in
the areas that matter. Not a bad title, but disappointingly limited.

Monday, 21 November 2016

Steep
is an upcoming extreme winter sports game set in the Alps,
represented in game as an open world you are free to explore. You can
switch on the fly between four different activities – skiing,
snowboarding, wingsuit flying and paragliding. The world is always
online and very much multiplayer/social focused.

The
core gameplay ‘loop’ is essentially this – you start at the top
of one of several mountain peaks. You then go down that mountain
either by land, by air or by a combination of the two. When you reach
the bottom, you then fast travel back to the top and do it all again.

And
that’s kind of fun, for a little while. There’s a nice sense of
speed and freedom as you throw yourself off a platform onto a near
vertical drop, before gliding, skiing or snowboarding your way to the
bottom, pulling off all manner of cool tricks and jumps as you go. At
times, you’ll wipe out, hitting the snow or rocks and ragdolling
your way rather hilariously down the mountain. Which is also kind of
fun, at least for a little while.

The
scenery is certainly pretty, with some lovely views from the mountain
peaks. Graphically though, it must be said that the game isn’t that
fantastic. The snow is handled well, but rocks, trees and the few
buildings that exist on the map are all a little shoddy. The music
isn’t that great either, and rather irritating when it loops every
time you want to restart a particular challenge or run.

There’s
an emphasis on community content, with the ability to create your own
runs and share them with other players, or by recording your runs and
editing the footage into a slick video replay. You can customise your
character with a variety of unlockable clothes and equipment,
although it’s all apparently cosmetic in nature, rather than stat
based.

But
there is a ‘level’ system in the game, which you can increase by
exploring the world, completing ‘mission’ objectives and
participating in challenge runs – in which you’re scored by time
and tricks and awarded medals based on your performance.

The
real problem Steep has though, is that there’s just not much to it.
There’s not much game here to get stuck into. Sure, it’s a
large open world you can explore – but it’s a world of snow,
rocks and trees. Once you’ve traversed one mountain slope, you’ve
pretty much traversed them all. Whilst it’s fun throwing yourself
down a mountain a few times, there’s nothing new or interesting to
see.

To
make matters worse, the world doesn’t feel hand crafted or tailored
for the gameplay. There’s a few obvious ‘trails’ to follow in
the snow, but there’s no carefully placed jumps or trick
opportunities. In fact, you’ll often hit patches of hard rock or
inexplicably placed wooden barriers which impede your descent, which
makes the free roam less enjoyable and fluid than it should be.

And
the same problem applies to the challenge runs – set courses to
follow with checkpoints. But these feel randomly put together too,
with no thought put into providing an enjoyable and challenging
custom designed course. The entire world feels like it was
procedurally generated, with no consideration to the core gameplay.

That’s
what really kills Steep for me. If the game had a selection of
varied, challenging courses, with multiple routes of varying
difficulty and abundant trick opportunities – I’d be far more
positive about it. But it doesn’t. So I can’t.

And
unfortunately, the environments aren’t the only issue. Whilst
snowboarding and the wingsuit are fun, and skiing is okay, the
gliding is dull as f**k. It’s terrible. And that’s a quarter of
your available gameplay down the drain right away. The trick system
is also rather poor. You never really feel ‘in control’ of what
you’re doing, as it’s more a matter of timing to stop performing
tricks before you crash to the ground, rather than actively using
combos to string different tricks together.

Speaking
of controls, they feel too loose and nowhere near as responsive as
they should be. And hit detection in the game is a bit of a mess as
you’ll sometimes pass near a tree or rock and then go flying head
over ass as if you clipped it.

All
that said, I still had some fun with Steep. There are moments when
you do find a good run in the open world and it’s a cool rush as
you slide and trick your way to the bottom. But there’s just not
enough game here to make it worth a purchase, especially not
at full price.

Hell, even half its release price would feel a little
steep (huh huh) as the entire game feels more like a tech demo
with a few features tacked on and an over reliance on player created
content to prop everything up.

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Bastion
is an action-rpg by Supergiant Games, the developers of Transistor
and the upcoming Pyre. Bastion was originally released in 2011 to an
extremely positive reception, but I wasn’t as enamoured with
Bastion as many others, which is why I was somewhat sceptical of
Supergiant’s next game – Transistor.

But
if you’ve seen my Transistor review, you’ll know I thought that
game was pretty damn amazing. So I really wanted to give Bastion
another shot to see if it could hook me now in a way that it didn’t
at release. So has it? Unfortunately – no.

Let’s
start with the good stuff. Like Transistor, the visuals, animation,
music and sound of Bastion is fantastic. The world is interesting,
with a subtle attention to detail, history and story. You play as
‘the Kid’ who awakens to find his world shattered (quite
literally) into pieces. You need to figure out what happened and how
to put the world back together again.

Unlike
Transistor, however, the story isn’t quite as engaging as its
premise. Like the world of Bastion, it’s a fragmented narrative,
that despite the wonderful narration, struggles to make an impact
until the very end. The story and characterisation is too threadbare
and too shallow to illicit much of an emotional reaction.

Which
I wouldn’t care too much about if the gameplay of Bastion offered
more than it does. The game is split into small, separate levels that
take roughly 10-15 minutes each to complete. There’s a good variety
of locations and enemies, but the combat itself is rather one-note
regardless of which weapon or ability you choose.

And
the game does have a decent selection of weapons and abilities, all
of which feel different to use, but sadly none of which encourage a
different style of play. You’ll earn experience to ‘level up’
which unlocks slots for various boosts in the form of ‘tonics’,
and you’ll find (or purchase) upgrades to your weapons. There are
also ‘idols’ which add various gameplay modifiers and can be
combined to further increase the challenge.

All
of this stuff is fine, but the problem is, it’s all slowly unlocked
as you progress through the game. Which sounds like a weird thing to
say, as I normally like it when a game continually unlocks new
mechanics and challenges as I progress. Let me explain – Bastion’s
gameplay is basic to say the least. It’s pretty much just a simple
button masher with little tactical depth aside from a ‘counter’
mechanic using your shield. It’s functional, but not terribly
exciting.

It
only begins to become more exciting as you unlock the various
weapons, tonics and idols to mix up the core gameplay. But because
each level (10-15 minutes) and the game (about 5 hours) is so short,
you simply don’t have the time to properly explore or enjoy these
new additions before the game is over. There’s no option to replay
levels in a single playthrough. The intention is that you’ll begin
a New Game+ with all of these items unlocked and ready to use from
the start.

But
the gameplay of Bastion just isn’t terribly interesting without
applying the various modifiers – which you won’t have fully
unlocked until the very end. When your game only becomes interesting
to play once you’ve finished the damn thing, that’s a bit
of a problem.

I
can’t say I didn’t have fun playing Bastion again, but my opinion
on it hasn’t really changed. Because the initial playful is so
painfully average (in terms of gameplay) I’m not exactly desperate
to jump into New Game+ even though I know it’ll offer a better
overall experience.

This
is something Transistor did brilliantly. It offered a satisfying
first playthrough, and an even more satisfying second. Bastion, on
the other hand, has an initial playthrough that feels like it exists
purely to unlock things for New Game+. But I don’t want to be too
hard on Bastion because overall, it’s a decent game. I just find
its design so frustratingly backwards.

Friday, 11 November 2016

I’ve
already spoken a little about the disappointing multiplayer map design of Titanfall
2 in my review, but I wanted to take a more in-depth look and explain
why, when compared to the maps in the original, those in Titanfall 2
kind of … suck.

As
I said in my Titanfall Retrospective, Titanfall is a game of
multi-layered gameplay and a strong aspect of its appeal is the
interplay between Pilot and Titan combat. Maps in the original game
were perfectly designed to accommodate both pilot and titan gameplay.

They
did this by carefully balancing what we shall call ‘pilot terrain’
and ‘titan terrain’. Whilst all the maps had open areas and
channels to accommodate titan movement and combat, they also featured
areas and pathways that were only accessible to pilots.

This
‘pilot terrain’ allowed those not in a titan to traverse the maps
with a degree of safety. Not only could titans not access these
areas, they were often unable to target pilots moving within them. It
granted vulnerable pilots the ability to traverse, relocate and evade.

The maps in Titanfall
2, unfortunately, strike a terrible balance between pilot and titan
terrain. There are very few, if any, ‘safe’ pilot pathways to
traverse the maps. All of the maps, to one degree or another, favour
titan gameplay over pilot, and this is an issue that I consider to be
a serious flaw in the map design of Titanfall 2.

The
Amped Hardpoint mode, in particular, suffers for this poor map
balance. On many of the maps, every domination point is either
located within titan terrain, or accessible to titan line of fire.
But, ultimately, all modes, even those that are less objective
focused, suffer due to this imbalance between pilot and titan
gameplay.

Titan
domination is the key to victory in nearly every mode. The team that
can control the titan terrain, effectively controls and wins the
match. I know it can be argued that this was also the case in the
original game, but it was never this easy.

A
team without titans could still traverse the maps with relative ease.
They could evade, relocate and strike back. But with some maps in
Titanfall 2 featuring what I would estimate to be less than 10% pilot
terrain, there’s very little opportunity for a team
without titan control to respond.

The
lack of pilot terrain also causes serious issues with pilot spawns,
as pilots either respawn in open titan terrain – an easy target –
or within a very small ‘safe’ area which is nearly always
separated by open terrain, allowing titan players to effectively
contain their opposition within a single location.

In
the original game, pilot terrain was designed to allow fairly safe
traversal from one side of the map to the other through the use of
tunnels, narrow passageways and rooftops, all of which
interconnected. But in Titanfall 2, the few areas of ‘safe’ pilot
terrain are nearly always separated by open titan terrain, meaning
there’s no safe way for a pilot to traverse the maps without continually
exposing themselves to titan observation and line of fire.

Verticality
was also a key aspect of the maps in the original. It allowed pilots
to traverse the terrain far more quickly than if they were in a
titan, often either above or below the titan terrain where they
couldn’t be reached. But in Titanfall 2, the maps are far more
‘flat’ with many featuring only one or two levels, and both fully
accessible to titans.

And
whilst the maps of the original did adhere to the ‘three lane’
structure of design, it was never so apparent as it is in Titanfall 2
due to the verticality and interconnections of pilot terrain.
Titanfall 2 severely lacks that key balance between pilot and titan
terrain and as a result, it lacks the important balance between titan
and pilot gameplay.

I
don’t think the maps of Titanfall 2 are terrible,
but they don’t serve the multi-layered gameplay of Titanfall. They
don’t provide the necessary balance. Whilst their visual and
environmental variety is an improvement on those of the original
Titanfall release maps, their design is far more simplistic and poor
in terms of balance.

The
maps of Titanfall 2 are easily its most serious weakness, which is
quite disappointing when compared to the original game, where they
were one of its greatest strengths. We need maps with a split balance
between pilot and titan terrain. We need maps with far more
verticality, with multiple levels both above and below. We need
objective and spawn points to be more carefully considered. And we
need far more complex maps, with interconnected pathways allowing for
fluid pilot traversal beyond the traditional ‘three lane’
design.

I
would happily pay for
a map pack with updated versions of all of the original maps in
Titanfall 2, because as great as I think the game is, I can’t deny
that it’s seriously lacking in a key area that is vital for its
long term prospects and appeal. We need new maps. We need better
maps. As fantastic and satisfying as I find the multiplayer of
Titanfall 2, all of it falls a little flat without the maps to
properly accommodate it.

If
there’s one thing I’ve seen that even dedicated fans of the game can all
agree on, it’s that ‘the maps kinda suck’. I can only hope the
developers are listening and understand why.

Thursday, 3 November 2016

The
original Titanfall is one of the most enjoyable online shooters I’ve
played in the last decade or so. Even though the player base on PC
was fairly dead within a year, it was able to maintain a small, but
dedicated community thanks to its excellent core mechanics and some
fantastic maps. It was a game I continually returned to, despite its
somewhat limited content and lack of populated modes. When Titanfall 2 was announced, it instantly became one of my most anticipated
titles of the year. The question is – does it live up to my
expectations, and is it a better game than its predecessor?

To
say that Titanfall 2 is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the original
is a little tricky because nearly every aspect of the original has
been overhauled to one degree or another. This will undoubtedly
disappoint some fans of the original, who may have simply wanted
Titanfall 1.5. That’s not quite what we got. Titanfall 2 plays and
feels quite different to the original game. If all you wanted was
Titanfall 1 with more stuff, you may be disappointed.

Movement
was a key part of the original game, and so it is in the sequel. The
system isn’t entirely the same, however, with alterations to speed,
momentum and the addition of a slide mechanic. Based on what I’ve
played (40 hours, Campaign completed on Hard, Regen 2 Level 30 in MP)
Titanfall 2 is actually faster than the original, but it does take
longer to build up that speed by chaining together wall runs and
slides.

And
wall running is far more ‘sticky’ than in the original, making it
much easier to traverse the maps whilst barely touching the ground –
when the maps allow for it, at least (more on those later). I can’t
really say which system I prefer. Both are extremely enjoyable in
their own way, but I must admit that if I returned to the original
game now, I’d probably find it strangely restrictive and slow
compared to Titanfall 2.

The
pilot combat of Titanfall 2 also feels quite different. It’s more
fast paced, with quicker kills and even quicker deaths. There are
various factors contributing to this feeling relating to weapon
types, pilot abilities and map design. And I hate to say it, but it
does make Titanfall 2 feel a little closer to a Call of Duty title
than the original did, which you’ll either see as a positive or a
negative depending on your preference.

Titan
combat is also different, with the 6 available Titans having locked
weapon and ability sets. Some may be disappointed at the lack of
customisation, but I actually quite like this change, as it gives
Titan v Titan combat a more strategic feel, particularly in the Last
Titan Standing mode.

Titans,
due to a lack of a recharging shield, initially feel weaker than
those in the original, and much more vulnerable to pilots. But once
you learn how best to use them, and realise how important it is to
work alongside the rest of your team, you soon realise how powerful
they actually are. And the game actively encourages team play when in
and out of a Titan through the new rodeo and ‘battery’ mechanic,
whereby you can steal an enemy Titan’s battery and give it to a
friendly Titan for a very useful shield boost.

The
only real problem with Titan combat and models, is how some Titans
feel far more powerful than others. Actually, it’s not such a
matter of power, but of the roles they play. Ion, Scorch, Ronin and
Northstar all occupy very specific class based roles, but they don’t
excel at everything. Ion is great for precision play and support.
Scorch is a heavy hitter and great at locking down areas of the map.
Ronin is fast and deals high short range damage, but is very weak at
long range whereas Northstar is a glass cannon, able to dish out high
long range damage, but is very fragile with few defensive options.

And
then we have Tone and Legion which … are just good at pretty much
everything. Short range, long range, high damage output, good
defensive options … it’s no surprise the majority of people are
rolling with one of these two Titans. I favour Tone myself as I was a
big fan of the 40mm cannon in the original, but even I can’t deny
that these two Titans are simply a better overall choice than any of
the others.

These
need some tweaking to make every Titan feel like an effective choice.
And Titans aren’t the only things needing some tweaks. Pilot
weapons could also use a few alterations in terms of stats. SMGs in
particular are ridiculous. I loved using SMGs in the original
game, where they operated as strong, short to mid-range weapons –
as you would expect. But in Titanfall 2, the SMGs have insanely long
range and even more more insane precision hip fire.

I
like and actually prefer hip fire weapons to ADS, but it’s pretty
silly being able to kill a pilot with an SMG half way across the map
in two short bursts. Yes, it’s that stupid powerful. I shouldn’t
get better long range accuracy shooting an SMG using hip fire, than
shooting with an assault rifle using ADS. They seriously need their
effective range reduced, or everyone will start rolling with SMG
builds, just as they’ll all be rolling with Tone and Legion.

Which
would be a damn shame, because the weapon selection and variety of
Titanfall 2 is fantastic. Every weapon feels unique in how it handles
and extremely satisfying to use. The only exception would be the
LMGs, which I’m still trying to figure out what kind of role
they’re intended to play. They’re powerful, but I don’t see any
situation where an assault rifle or SMG would be any less effective.

I
even like the sniper weapons in Titanfall 2, believe it or not. At
least, I like the Double Take, which is a cross between a sniper
rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. The weapons don’t just feel good
to use, they also sound amazing. In fact, the general sound design of
Titanfall 2 is fantastic – it’s just a shame the music is so
forgettable compared to the original.

In
terms of MP progression, there’s a ton of stuff in Titanfall 2 to
unlock – weapons, attachments, modifications, abilities, boosts and
hundreds of various skins for both pilot, weapon and Titan. The fan
favourite Attrition mode returns, with the addition of new enemy
types, as does Last Titan Standing, Capture the Flag, Pilots vs. Pilots
and Hardpoint. Although Hardpoint – one of my favourite game modes
of the original – has been revamped as ‘Amped’ Hardpoint.

And
I can’t say I care for it in Titanfall 2 as much as I did in the
original, as the new ‘amped’ mechanic encourages more static
behaviour than I prefer. It essentially means that sitting on a point
doubles its score per second. And if you want to play effectively and
win, you’re really required to amp those points and hold them, but
that results in a lot of sitting around and waiting when you want to
bouncing off those walls.

The
new game mode Bounty Hunt, a neat twist on Attrition, is a fun
addition with an interesting risk/reward system. And then we have
Coliseum – a 1 v 1 mode that’s more of a novelty than a serious
addition. There’s also Free For All, but I haven’t played much of
this mode and it’s probably the least popular based on population.

The
maps don’t really feel designed for it, especially not the spawn
system. The first time I played it I died at the beginning of the
match without even taking a single step – the game spawned someone
directly behind me like it would in a team based mode. And
unfortunately, it’s not the only mode with spawn problems, as the
game occasionally likes to drop you back into the action directly in
the path of an enemy Titan or in the line of sight of multiple enemy
players.

There
are also some issues with the Titan drop system on some maps (Complex
in particular) whereby you can aim at the ground to call in your
Titan, and it’ll drop on the other side of the bloody map. Melee
hit detection is also all over the place, leading to awkward moments
when you’ll meet an enemy player and spend ten seconds frantically
trying to hit each other before a blow randomly decides to connect.
But like many of the issues I’ve mentioned, this can be fixed. And
none of these are major issues – just annoyances that should
be smoothed out over time.

What
can’t really be smoothed out, is that Titanfall 2 does share one
problem with the original in the sense that if only one or more of
your team doesn’t quite perform, it’s easy to get stomped, no
matter how well you play. It’s also common seeing people quit
matches when they’ve barely begun because the enemy team take an
early lead – but this just f**ks over everyone who’s left. I see
this a lot in Capture the Flag.

And
then we have to talk about people cheating/hacking because we’re
already getting reports of it barely days after the game’s release.
It wasn’t a major issue in Titanfall 1, so I hope that’s the case
here, but I’ve already encountered a few players myself who are …
questionable, to say the least.

Something
else I need to talk about is map design. The maps in Titanfall 1 were
fantastic and perfectly accommodated the multi-layered gameplay.
Titanfall 2 … not so much. Whilst the maps offer more visual
variety this time, and all of them are fine, none of them are
particularly exceptional either. When the map most people are eager
to play is a remaster of a map from Titanfall 1, that really tells
you something.

The
maps also feel very ‘artificial’ and over designed. The maps in
the original felt like real places, as odd as that sounds, but the
current maps in Titanfall 2 feel like fake arenas that are structured
not as a real location would be, but as a multiplayer map
should be. They’re also all rather flat, compared to
the multi-level verticality offered by those in the original. And
with only nine release maps, I’m already getting a little tired of
some of them.

This
certainly isn’t helped by a map rotation system that seems to
favour certain maps more than others – I can count on one hand the
amount of times I’ve played on Exoplanet, but I’ve lost count of
my matches on Drydock. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky.

And
not all maps seem appropriately designed for all modes. Amped
Hardpoint suffers in particular in terms of the objective placement,
many of which are in an easy line of sight for Titans, meaning that
on some maps, which team get their Titans down first can easily
dominate and stomp the enemy team, essentially trapping them within
their own spawn zone.

I’ve
already hit max level in the multiplayer and ‘regenerated’ to see
what happens. It’s not too punishing, as it doesn’t reset your
weapon or Titan levels – you just need to level up to unlock them
again. Overall, the MP of Titanfall 2, whilst feeling different to
the original, having no truly great maps, and suffering from some
early release balance issues, is still easily one of the most
enjoyable, polished and tightly designed shooters you’ll ever play.

Titanfall
2, unlike the original, also offers a full single player campaign
which is easily one of the best shooter campaigns I’ve played in
years. It’s very short – about 5-6 hours on Hard (and Hard is
something of a cakewalk) – but the polish and variety is fantastic,
and the entire campaign is a perfect tutorial for movement, Titan
classes and weapons. Whilst the story is fairly generic, the
characters help bring it to life, and the gameplay is fast paced and
far more free form than you might expect.

It
feels like a cross between the new Doom and Portal 2, with open areas
full of bad guys to shoot, but mixed with fun platform puzzles to
solve. It mixes things up every level so you never get bored and it’s
something I can see myself replaying multiple times. But as great as
it is, I still wouldn’t recommend the game purely for its campaign
alone, at least not until it’s on sale, as the MP is obviously the
primary focus. But if you love single player first person shooters,
you really need to pick it up at some point.

So
does Titanfall 2 live up to my expectations? I’d say yes – but
it’s not perfect, and it certainly needs more care and attention. I
still can’t say if it’s ‘better’ than Titanfall 1. It’s
just different. In some ways, for the better. In other ways, for the
worse. But it’s easily the best online shooter I’ve played since
the original, and despite releasing at a difficult time, I hope it
can retain its existing users and continue to grow its community.
It’s far too good not to.